I recently purchased a Canon 5D mark II to use as a still camera only I have a video camera for shooting videos the camera has limited shooting time which requires more editing time plus it uses a lot of memory cards. But as a still camera I'm in love

As an amateur photographer who started with a NIKKORMAT FT in 1967 struggling with F-stops, apertures and manual focusing, digital photography, while revolutionary, has taken away some of the challenge and satisfaction that I used to derive from "the hunt". To me, photography is still photography and I have little use for video. It is time-consuming to watch and it becomes voluminous to store.

For the purchase my first DSLR a couple of months ago, my wife was glad to see the feature when I bought a Nikon D-90. But I bought the camera b/c I thought its other features would make a great step up between amateur and potential professional. (But I still won't stop taking pictures and videos of our kiddoes on outings though!)

This is not a yes or no question. It depends on your position in photography. For the casual photographer it may be a nice addition. As a working pro whose only business is aerial photography I no need for it. However, it will not be a suprise if it works it's way in my world in the future.

I will choose my next D-SLR (soon) based on whether it also takes video. Presently I carry a 2nd pocket-sized compact digital camera for its video capabilities. I don't use the feature regularly, but want the feature available when the situation presents itself.

A DSLR with video capability would steer me away from choosing that camera. I'm a still photographer. If I wanted to do video I'd purchase a video camera. I don't like having a lot of features I will never use packed into a camera that I use for a particular purpose. I feel this detracts rather than adds to the camera's functionality and I don't like having to pay for features I don't want. This goes for other features such as GPS as well.